Category Archives: Constitution

Obama is going rogue. By every metric the Obama economy is melting down. We are seeing the beginning stages of another recession at best, or a total economic meltdown at worst.

At the moment there are no decent paying jobs in America. Obama has opened the border and given amnesty to at least 5 million illegal aliens already in the country, thereby putting them in competition with working class and middle class Americans.
Think I’m wrong? Did you know the government is giving businesses a $3000 incentive to hire illegal’s over native-born Americans?

Did you know cities are hiring non-citizens (and even illegal aliens given amnesty by Obama) as policemen? All you need is a work permit. Someone here illegally can wear a badge and enforce the law against you.

Did you think the border crisis was over? Obama’s amnesty has encouraged a new wave of poverty-stricken illegals at the border.

And, in a bankrupt nation with over $18 trillion in debt, Obama has used amnesty to give illegals access to food stamps, free healthcare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, earned income tax credits…and by issuing drivers licenses and Social Security cards they will be able to vote immediately (because States don’t have the technology to tell the difference between a legal citizen or a noncitizen, legal or not).

The Obamacare fiasco gets worse by the day. The middle class is being bankrupted by skyrocketing increases in their health insurance premiums; hospitals are being bankrupted by the flood of illegal aliens accessing services; and the economy will drown in the new debt caused by Obamacare.

Obama’s claim that ISIS is on the run is a proven fraud, ripped bare by America’s embarrassing military withdrawl from Yemen.

Obama is going nuclear in his hatred for Bibi Netanyahu and Israel, force-feeding the world a weak nuclear agreement with Iran that is so bad, even France is fighting for stronger sanctions. Meanwhile Obama threatens to become the first president in history to abandon Israel at the United Nations.

But, I haven’t gotten to the bad part yet. Is it possible the terrible news about the economy, the border, ISIS and Israel is all just a distraction? Because the really important news is that Obama has created a modern-day version of “the Gestapo.”

The Obama government is using an initiative called “Operation Chokepoint” to force legal businesses it doesn’t like out of business, by threatening and intimidating banks and credit card processors.

At the same time, the Obama government is urging banks to call the police to report citizens who withdraw $5000 or more from their own bank accounts. Yes, I said banks are urged to call the police, when you withdraw your own money.

This comes at the same time that FEMA announced it will no longer provide FEMA disaster relief funds to states whose Governors deny “climate change.”

And let’s not forget Obama used an FCC party-line vote to take over the Internet and institute sweeping new changes to a system that is working perfectly as the form of communication for most Americans.

Obama’s first goal is clearly massive new taxes on Internet usage, just another way to destroy the middle class and redistribute income. But is his real goal controlling communications on the Internet- specifically the anti-Obama criticism and anti-government message so prevalent on the Internet.

But let’s circle back to the most Gestapo-like Obama initiative ever. It’s called “Operation Chokepoint.” This is your government’s attempt to put morality controls (just like those in Iran) on the American public by shutting down gun stores, precious metals companies, casinos, tobacco distributors, telemarketers, and short-term money lenders.

How can they close legal businesses you ask? By threatening and intimidating banks and credit card processors to close accounts for businesses the government doesn’t like. Just like an Iranian Ayatollah, if Obama doesn’t like your business, he will “choke off” your ability to stay in business. Hence the name, “Operation Chokepoint.”

Never forget Obama has been on a 6-year long relentless crusade to raise our taxes and take away our tax deduction for charitable donations, choking off contributions to churches. Yes, Obama is trying to “choke off” the funding that keeps churches in business too.

Why is this happening? First, because Obama despises capitalism. He needs to put prosperous businesses out of business. By murdering the middle class’s ability to prosper, he creates his utopia of equality (ie “shared misery”), making everyone dependent on government in a classless, socialist society. Think Cuba and Venezuela.

Second, there is an obvious reason Obama hates these particular industries. The subtitle of my 2009 book, “The Conscience of a Libertarian” says it all. The subtitle was “Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold, Gambling & Tax Cuts.” Is it a coincidence that virtually every item I mentioned is under attack?

The businesses on the list of “Operation Chokepoint” are all dominated by people that Obama would describe as capitalists, patriots, conservatives, Tea Partiers, Christians and supporters of the Constitution. Not coincidently, those are the same groups targeted by Obama in the IRS scandal.

And then of course, if Obama can’t close your business, or “choke off” your ability to prosper, he can force banks to call the police if you dare to withdraw money from your own account.

Folks this is eerily reminiscent of The Gestapo, or the Soviet KGB, or the East German Stasi.

Is this the America you want? The NSA spying on your every move…the federal government in charge of your healthcare and now your free speech on the Internet…the IRS auditing enemies and critics of the government…the federal government forcing legal businesses they deem “unacceptable” out of business…and banks spying on their own customers and being forced to call the police when customers withdraw too much of their own money.

Yes, under Barack Hussein Obama the Gestapo is alive and well in the former “Land of the Free.”

Wayne Allyn Root, a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, is one of the most popular political and media stars in America. His columns and commentaries are read at the biggest political & news web sites in America- including FoxNews.com. He makes regular appearances at Fox News Channel, and hundreds of radio stations across the country. Wayne is a Capitalist Evangelist, entrepreneur and small businessman, home-school dad, best-selling author, and Tea Party Libertarian conservative. His web site: http://www.ROOTforAmerica.com

Ron Reagan, the younger (and biological) son of the late President Ronald Reagan, made a 30-second ad campaign to promote atheism for the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF).

FFRF ran a radio version of the ad last year on “The Randi Rhodes Show.” A TV version has been broadcast more recently on “The Daily Show” and repeatedly on CNN. ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox declined to run the ad.

In the ad, with a mocking sneer, 56-year-old Ron proudly declares that he’s “a lifelong atheist, not afraid of burning in Hell.”

Ron has been a nonbeliever since childhood and is surprised when people react negatively when they hear about it. He told the L.A. Times last year, “I think when you hold an opinion that you find entirely reasonable, you are surprised when you discover that other people don’t also consider it reasonable, and kind of get up in arms.”

This morning, at Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), announced his 2016 presidential campaign.

Ted Cruz, joined by wife Heidi and daughters, announces his presidential campaign at Liberty U., March 23, 2015

Ted Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where his parents were working in the oil business as owners of a seismic-data processing firm for oil drillers. Cruz’s parents returned to Houston in 1974. They divorced when Ted was in law school.

While Ted Cruz’s mother, Eleanor, was born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware, in a family of three quarters Irish and one quarter Italian descent, Ted’s father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Ted’s birth.

Rafael Cruz was born in 1939 in Matanzas, Cuba. He fought for Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolution when he was 14 years old, but claims he “didn’t know Castro was a Communist.” In 1957, 18-year-old Rafael fled Cuba and landed in Austin, to study at the University of Texas, graduating with a degree in mathematics. In 2005, Rafael became a naturalized U.S. citizen. He is a pastor in Carrollton, a suburb of Dallas, Texas.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So what does “natural born” citizen of the United States mean?

The problem is that the U.S. Constitution does not define the term “natural born citizen” nor is the term found in any existing Federal statute. Although the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen parent is a U.S. citizen by modern-day policy, no existing Federal statute declares such a child to be a natural born citizen.

definition #1: “Natural born citizen” is anyone born in the United States

According to a Congressional Research Service memorandum (April 3, 2009), the weight of legal opinion is that anyone born in the United States, except the child of a foreign diplomat, is a natural born citizen:

The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that “natural born Citizen” means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country) … [Maskell (2009), p.5]

But the Heritage Foundation points out that “prior to 2009, the U.S. State Department [had] . . . seeds of doubt regarding the legal status, at birth, of children born in the United States, of alien parents who are in the United States temporarily or illegally.”

Definition #2: “Natural born citizen” also means a foreign-born child of U.S.-citizen parents

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.

But James Madison, in 1795, expressed concern that someone might erroneously infer from the 1790 Act that the foreign-born children of American parents actually “are” (not merely “considered as”) natural born citizens.

Sen. John McCain was born on August 29, 1936, at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, to two U.S. citizens, naval officer John S. McCain Jr. and Roberta (Wright) McCain. At that time, the Panama Canal was under U.S. control. In 2008, the U.S. Senate passed Resolution 511 regarding presidential candidate John McCain’s natural born citizenship, but the resolution was nonbinding and had no legal effect.

definition #3: A foreign-born child of a non-U.S. citizen parent cannot be a “natural born citizen”

Then there is the question of whether both the mother and father must be U.S. citizens for their foreign-born child to be considered a “natural born” U.S. citizen:

According to federal case law prior to 1898, U.S. citizenship at birth was based on the principle ofpartus sequitur patrem or offspring follows the status of the father.

The Supreme Court inInglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884) ruled that a child born on U.S. soil, of a father who owes allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States, is not a U.S. citizen at birth; and that the citizenship of such a child is that of its father, not its place of birth. Consequently, the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen father cannot be a natural born citizen.

In 2004, Senate Bill S.2128: Natural Born Citizen Act gave a definition of “natural born citizen”, but it never became law. As of today, there is no Federal statute that explicitly defines who is, and who is not, a natural born citizen. Even if there were such a statute, it would most likely be unconstitutional because Congress does not have the authority to change the meaning of the Constitution by passing a law that redefines a term that the Constitution uses. Only the Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has to date refused to specify what “natural born” in Article II of the U.S. Constitution means. Alternatively, a definition of “natural born citizen” can be supplied via a Constitutional Amendment.

Ted Cruz may be considered a “natural born” U.S. citizen according to Definition #2 only if #2 refers to a foreign-born child who has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth.

Ted Cruz is definitely not a “natural born” U.S. citizen under either Definition #1 or Definition #3.

Ted Cruz graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1995, so he knows full well the above. And yet it was only after the Dallas Morning News, in August 2013, pointed out that Cruz had dual Canadian-American citizenship that he applied to formally renounce his Canadian citizenship. On May 14, 2014, Cruz ceased being a citizen of Canada.

Now you know why the GOP never contested Barack Obama’s suspect “natural born” citizenship — he who supposedly was born in Honolulu, Hawaii (but document forensics experts say his Hawaii birth certificate is fraudulent) of a U.S. citizen mother but a Kenyan father who was then a subject of Great Britain because Kenya was then a British colony.

♦ People create governments to secure God-given rights. The first three words of our Constitution throw off the European model where political power originates with the State; and establish the new Principle that WE THE PEOPLE are the “pure, original fountain of all legitimate political authority” (Federalist No. 22, last sentence).

♦ When a government seeks to take away our God given rights, we have the right to alter, abolish, or throw off that Form of government.

These are the Principles which justified our Revolution against a King.

These are also the Principles which permit us today to throw off our Form of government by discarding our existing Constitution and replacing it with another one. This is why the language at Article V of our Constitution, which authorizes Congress to call a convention “for proposing amendments”, does not restrict Delegates to merely “proposing amendments”: Delegates are invested with that inherent pre-existing sovereign right, recognized in our Declaration, to abolish our existing Form of government (our Constitution) and propose a new Constitution.

This has happened once before in our Country. I’ll show you.

The Federal Convention of 1787: Federal and State Instructions to Delegates

“for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.

The Continental Congress authorized each of the then 13 States to appoint Delegates to the convention. Twelve of the States 1 made laws respecting the appointment of Delegates and issuing instructions to Delegates. Ten States instructed their Delegates to propose alterations to the Articles of Confederation; and only two (North Carolina and New Hampshire) gave instructions which arguably permitted their Delegates to do more than propose alterations to the Articles of Confederation. 2

But the Delegates ignored the federal and State limitations and wrote a new Constitution (the one we have now is our second Constitution). Because of this inherent authority of Delegates, it is impossible to stop it from happening at a convention today (which will surely result in a third Constitution).

The Delegates to the 1787 convention also instituted an easier mode of ratification. Whereas Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation required approval of all of the then 13 States before an amendment could be ratified; Article VII of the new Constitution provided that only 9 States were required for ratification of the new Constitution.

Why is an Article V Convention Dangerous?

So! Do you see?

If we have a convention today, there is nothing to stop Delegates from proposing a third Constitution with its own new method of ratification.

New Constitutions are already prepared and waiting for a convention. Here are three:

♦ Fifty years ago, the Ford & Rockefeller Foundations produced the Constitution for the Newstates of America. It is ratified by a referendum called by the President [Art 12, Sec. 1]. If we have a convention, and Delegates propose the Newstates Constitution, it doesn’t go to the States for ratification – it goes directly to the President to call a Referendum. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. Read the Newstates Constitution and tremble for your country.

♦ The Constitution 2020 movement is funded by George Soros and supported by Marxist law professors and Marxist groups all over the Country, Cass Sunstein and Eric Holder. They want a Marxist Constitution and they want it in place by the year 2020. It further appears that Soros is funding much of the current push for an Article V convention.

Warnings from the Wise

Brilliant men have warned against an Article V convention. It is immoralto dismiss their warnings:

♦ Alexander Hamilton writes of “the utter improbability of assembling a new convention, under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue, as those in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded…” Federalist No. 85 (9th para)

♦ James Madison writes in his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville that he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and that an Article V Convention would give “the most violent partizans” and “individuals of insidious views” “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our Country. In Federalist No. 49, he shows that the convention method is NOT GOOD to correct breaches of the federal constitution because the People aren’t philosophers – they follow what influential people tell them! And the very legislators who caused the problem would get themselves seats at the convention so they could control the outcome.

♦ Former US Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg reminds us in his Sep. 14, 1986 article in The Miami Herald, that at the convention of 1787, the delegates ignored their instructions from the Continental Congress and instead of proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation, wrote a new Constitution. He warns that “…any attempt at limiting the agenda [of the convention] would almost certainly be unenforceable.”

♦ Former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Berger warns in his June 1988 letter to Phyllis Schlafly that “there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention”; “After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda”; and “A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn…”

Can State Laws Control Delegates?

Convention supporters say we don’t have to worry about any of the above because States can make laws controlling their Delegates.

Really? James Madison, Father of our Constitution and a consistent opponent of the convention method of proposing amendments, didn’t know that. Two US Supreme Court Justices didn’t know that. They said there is no effective way to control the Delegates.

But in case you are uncertain as to who is telling you the Truth – and who isn’t – I will show you how easily State laws which pretend to control Delegates can be circumvented.

“No delegate from New Hampshire to the Article V convention shall have the authority to allow consideration, consider, or approve an unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.” [italics mine]

Section 20-C:1 V. of the bill defines “unauthorized amendment” as:

“any amendment outside the scope permitted by the Article V petition passed by the general court of New Hampshire”.

What is wrong with this?

♦ It doesn’t prohibit New Hampshire Delegates from proposing or approving a new Constitution.

♦ Article V of the US Constitution provides that Amendments will be proposed at the convention. Any state laws contrary to Article V must fall under the supremacy clause at Article VI, US Constitution.

♦ New Hampshire Delegates can’t restrict Delegates from other States.

♦ It ignores the inherent sovereign authority of Delegates to throw off both their State governments and the federal government by proposing a new constitution with whatever new mode of ratification they want. Remember! Under the proposed Newstates Constitution, the States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.

♦ And if the States already know what amendments they want, they should tell their State congressional delegations to propose them in Congress. This is the method James Madison always advised.

Section 20-C:2 II. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Any vote taken by a delegate from New Hampshire at the Article V convention in violation of paragraph I of this section shall be null and void. Any delegate making this vote shall be immediately disqualified from serving as a delegate to the Article V convention.”

♦ What if the Delegates vote by secret ballot? As long as some vote “for” and others vote “against” every proposition, there is no way to tell who did what.

Section 20-C:2 III. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Every delegate from New Hampshire to the Article V convention called for by the Article V petition shall be required to take the following oath:”

“I do solemnly swear or affirm that to the best of my abilities, I will, as a delegate to the Article V convention, uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and the state of New Hampshire. I will accept and will act according to the limits of the authority as a delegate granted to me by New Hampshire law, and I will not vote to consider or approve any unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America. I understand and accept any penalties that may be imposed on me by New Hampshire law for violating this oath.” [boldface mine]

Does one need to comment on the efficacy of Oaths of Office in our degenerate times? Article II, §1, last clause, of our Constitution requires the President to take an Oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”; and Article VI, last clause, requires everyone in the federal and State governments to take an oath to obey the Constitution.

Who today honors his Oath of Office?

Section 20-C:2 IV. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Any delegate who violates the oath contained in paragraph III of this section shall be subject to the maximum criminal penalty under RSA 641:2.”

Any criminal defense attorney worth her salt can figure out how to get around this one:

♦ As shown above, if the proceedings of the convention are kept secret, or Delegates vote by secret ballot, one would never know if any one Delegate violated his oath. Defense counsel would get any attempted criminal prosecution of any particular Delegate dismissed at a pretrial hearing.

♦ Congress can pass a law granting immunity from prosecution to the Delegates.

♦ The Delegates can insert a clause in the new constitution granting themselves immunity from prosecution.

♦ If the new constitution abolishes the States, as does the Newstates Constitution, there is no State left to prosecute Delegates.

♦ The local prosecutor is the one who decides whether he will prosecute any criminal offense under his jurisdiction. Politics are a deciding factor in deciding whether to prosecute. Remember Eric Holder refused to prosecute Black Panthers who intimidated white voters at a polling place?

Do you see? James Madison, Justice Arthur Goldberg, and Justice Warren Burger were right: It is impossible to restrict the Delegates.

Everything to Lose, Nothing to Gain

If there is a convention today, George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton won’t be there to protect you. Who will the Delegates be? You don’t know. Do you trust them?

Our Framers never said that when the federal [and State] government violate the Constitution, the remedy is to amend the Constitution they violate. They never said the remedy is to file a lawsuit and let federal judges decide.

They expected us to act as they did – with “manly firmness” 3 – and resist unconstitutional acts of the federal and state governments. Our Constitution doesn’t need “fixing” – it needs to be read and enforced by our votes; and failing that, by manly opposition – resistance – nullification.

Endnotes:

1 Rhode Island boycotted the Convention. See RI’s Statement of Reasons in document at 2 below.

2 For the texts of the States’ instructions to their Delegates and a helpful commentary, go to Principled Policy Blog HERE.

3 The 7th paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says: “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.” [boldface mine] PH

Publius Huldah is a retired attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge). She now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution, using the Federalist Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She also shows how federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced it with their personal opinions and beliefs.h

In an interview on Fox News yesterday, Ken Paxton, the attorney general of the State of Texas, was asked whether America is heading toward “a constitutional crisis” because of Obama’s total disregard for Congress and now the courts. (The segment begins at the 2:55 mark in the Fox News video, here.)

Paxton replied:

“I think we are. If you think about what’s going on here — the President is violating federal law, the U.S. Constitution, which is going past what Congress is supposed to be doing, and now we’ve got the administration in court not being forthcoming about they’re supposed to be forthcoming about. We definitely have a huge issue here related to whether the Obama administration is going to follow the Constitution, and then once they get into court, whether they’re going to tell the truth.”

Paxton’s stunning remark was precipitated by Obama’s latest “F-you” to the court, specifically to Andrew Hanen, the federal judge who is single-handedly doing the job of the useless Congress by standing up to Obama’s reckless amnesty.

Judge Andrew Hanen

On Feb. 16, 2015, U.S. District Judge Hanen issued a preliminary injunction to temporarily block Obama’s amnesty so as to give a coalition of 26 states the time they need to pursue a lawsuit to permanently stop the amnesty orders.If the implementation of Obama’s amnesty were not blocked, Hanen reasons, the 26 states will “suffer irreparable harm in this case” because once the millions of illegals obtain amnesty, “the genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle.” (See “Federal judge stops Obama’s executive amnesty for illegals”)

At issue are two executive memoranda signed by Obama last November:

The first memorandum expands eligibility for Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which halts deportations and allows work permits for certain undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children.

The second executive memo, known as DAPA, would extend similar benefits to the parents of U.S. citizens and permanent legal residents.

Hanen responded by denying the DOJ’s request. So the federal government has asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to lift Hanen’s injunction while the case is appealed.

The latest tussle between Judge Hanen and Obama took place last Thursday, March 19, 2015.

As reported by FoxNews, at a Texas hearing on Obama’s amnesty executive actions, Judge Hanen sharply scolded a DOJ attorney — that the administration had misled Hanen on a key part of the program, for which Hanen fell “like an idiot.” Hanen said he could order sanctions against the administration if he finds the DOJ indeed had misrepresented the facts.

At issue is whether the DOJ had misled the judge into believing that a plank of the Obama amnesty program would not go forward before he made the Feb. 16 ruling to temporarily halt it. The program is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that gives deportation reprieves (i.e., effective amnesty) to thousands of young illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as “minors.” The problem is that even before Hanen’s ruling on Feb. 16 to block DACA’s implementation, federal officials had already given 3-year reprieves and work permits to more than 108,000 illegal aliens.

Associate White House Counsel Kathleen Hartnett, a Harvard Law grad like Obama, successfully worked on repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

At the Thursday hearing, Hanen chided DOJ attorney Kathleen Hartnett for telling him at a January hearing before the Feb. 16 injunction was issued that nothing would be happening with regard to DACA until Feb. 18.

“Like an idiot I believed that,” Hanen said.

A flustered Hartnett repeatedly apologized to Hanen for any confusion related to how the reprieves and work permits were granted. “We strive to be as candid as possible. It truly became clear to us there was confusion on this point,” she said.

“Can I trust what the president says? That’s a yes or no question,” Hanen asked.

“Yes your honor,” Hartnett replied.

The coalition of 26 states have asked that Hanen consider issuing sanctions against the Obama administrationbecause, in the words of the coalition’s lead attorney Angela Colmenero (who is also a lawyer with the Texas Attorney General’s Office), DOJ attorneys had made “representations (that) proved not to be true or at a minimum less than forthcoming.”

Obama’s DOJ lawyer Hartnett insists “There is absolutely no basis for sanctions here. The government is absolutely trying to do the right thing.”

Hanen said he would issue a ruling “promptly” on what action, if any, he will take against the Justice Department.

In previous articles here and here, we have learned of many associations with the leaders of the Article V Convention of States movement which have caused concern for many. In the last few weeks, some of the main architects of this movement testified before a Texas legislative committee, including Michael Farris, Sen. Tom Coburn, Nick Dranias, Mike Stern and Roman Buhler. Just one dissenting voice was included from Pat Carlson of the Texas Eagle Forum, whose concerns were quickly dismissed. Heading this committee was Texas Representative Phil King, who also happens to be the National Chairperson for ALEC. As we have learned previously, ALEC has been instrumental in promoting an Article V Convention.

James Madison, Father of our Constitution

By no coincidence, many of the same participants promoted the Article V to the January 2015 meeting of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), founded by well known Texas political activist and former founder of KCI, James Leininger. TPPF is part of the national State Policy Network (SPN), which has also been previously discussed in connection with those promoting the COS:

The State Policy Network’s (SPN) 2010 meeting encompassed many of these same names, including Drew Ryun, Leo Linbeck III, Nick Dranias (Compact for America’s Article V director), Eric O’Keefe, as well as representation from the Texas Public Policy Foundation (part of the SPN) founded by James Leininger. Among the presentations there was one on the Constitutional amendment process by Nick Dranias as well as information and handouts from Ned Ryun on engaging the Tea Party, with some extensive market research on the Tea Party provided. This would certainly help them to “sell” things to Tea Party groups, using the issues and language they know Tea Parties respond to.

It has the support of a broad spectrum of political leaders including former Comptroller General of the U.S. David M. Walker, Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, McCain 2008 chair Charlie Black, former House Appropriations Chair Bob Livingston, American Conservative Union Chair Al Cardenas, David Keating, Colin Hanna, Lew Uhler, David Keene, David McIntosh, Ted Cruz, Michael Farris, and state legislators in more than 20 states.David Norcross, former General Counsel of the RNC, Bruce Ash, Chairman of the RNC Rules Committee, John Ryder, Chairman of the RNC Redistricting Committee, and Chuck Bell, Counsel to the CA Republican Party are among the Republican Party legal experts who support the Madison Amendment.The Madison Amendment has been endorsed by other groups including ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council), the National Taxpayers Union, and the NY State Conservative Party.

Well known in Libertarian circles for decades, Ron Paul supporter Melinda Pillsbury-Foster operates multiple websites which include anti-GOP rants, online feuds with her family, green projects, and more. Some may remember her and her daughter, Morgan, in a very public scandal which ended up with the arrest of Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund and then her daughter’s subsequent recanting of the story. She maintains the “American Vision Magazine” site in conjunction with the MacPherson site.

Dominionist theology is strongly indicated on the MacPherson site, both in the inclusion and writings of “common Law” lawyer Brent Allen Winters (see below) and some of their own content. The MacPherson sites are peppered with Biblical quotes and the MacPherson site recommends books by Christian Reconstructionist Gary North, well known Ron Paul associate, son-in-law of the late (Dominionist) R. J. Rushdoony, also something that has previously been linked to COS’ Michael Farris. Other book recommendations include “That You May Prosper: Dominion by Covenant” by Ray Sutton. Sutton is referenced here by North in this article on Biblical resistance to civil authority and highly recommended on North’s website as part of their Christian Reconstructionist reading list.

One of the links included on their “American Vision Magazine” site (right hand column) is to common law lawyer Brent Allan Winters. Winters has been a guest on David Barton’s Wallbuilders radio show discussing “common law”. His writings include topics such as common law, the Abrahamic covenant, asset protection and Ron Paul, so we are again seeing the combination of Libertarian and Christian Reconstructionist ideas.

The strange intertwining of big money interests, Dominionism, Common Law interpretations and Libertarian networks (and pretend royalty??) continues to repeat itself as we look at the main spokespeople for an Article V Convention of States. It is time to start giving some serious thought to what the real end goal is.

NOTE: This link will take you to a photo page summing up all of the above, with photos taken with Roman Buhler, Grover Norquist, and Sheriff Mack as well as their pseudo-royal friends. For those who may not be familiar with Dominionism and its’ forms, there is a thorough article on it here.

We’re told that it’s a place of utter anguish and torment. An eternal destination for those who turn their backs on God and reject the Ten Commandments. Imagine the most painful, the most degrading, the most unspeakable torture you can imagine, multiply it by a thousand, and it probably will not come close to the reality of hell.

Flesh-eating demons, eternal fire, the stench of sulfur…

There’s no sleeping in hell. No rest or reprieve from continuous suffering and agony. And it lasts forever.

So who goes to hell?

Those who commit murder are going to hell.

Those who lie and deceive in order to gain money or political power are going to hell. (Anyone come to mind?)

Those who practice abortion are going to hell.

Those who knowingly vote for Democratic candidates who legislate for abortion are going to hell.

Those who peddle pornography are going to hell, including most mainstream television, movies, and magazines.

Those who dress or pose immodestly, drawing others to sin, are going to hell.

Those who have sold their souls in exchange for fame and success are going to hell.

Those who legislate or resort to subterfuge in an effort to disarm the American people are going to hell.

Those who work to remove God, prayer, and Christianity from schools and society are going to hell.

Those who abuse their positions of religious or spiritual leadership with false teachings of progressivism, multiculturalism, diversity, and socialism are going to hell.

Those who teach our children and pollute their minds with false teachings of progressivism, multiculturalism, diversity, and socialism are going to hell.

Those who live off the work of others, while refusing to work themselves, are dangerously close to going to hell.

Those who promote and encourage racism through diversity, multiculturalism, and socialist policies are dangerously close to going to hell.

Those who are angry and indignant at reading this because they recognize themselves are most likely going to hell, if they don’t change.